9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted area of Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. They have been licensed by the Commissioner of Customs in terms of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that based on the certain information, the officers of SIIB of New Customs House, Delhi intercepted a courier shipment at the carrier terminal and examined the said consignment, which arrived from Hong Kong on 23.04.2012. On examination of the said courier consignment, it was noticed that no proper documents accompanied the said consignment. The receiver‟s name was mentioned as "Raja Traders", "Mr. Tarun (Tel.No.9810087272)" and "Xtra image". No address or other details regarding contents of the cargo were available. The goods were examined and the consignment was found to contain 90000 pieces of Micro SD Card, both branded and un-branded with capacities of 2GB/4GB. 500 pieces of connectors and one set of printed cylinder with cover were also found. Detailed follow up investigation was conducted on the ground that there was an attempt to illegally import these electronic items with mis-declaration of contents as well as value in order to evade proper customs duty. Statements of va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, Courier Exports and Imports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, notice was issued to various persons. Notice essentially alleged that the import consignments which were intercepted by the officers did not contain any clear address or declaration of the contents and there was an attempt to substitute the name of the importers, after interception of the cargo. The goods were not properly declared for contents as well as value and accordingly, apart from proposing confiscation of the goods, enhancement of value, notice also proposed penalties on various noticees. As noted earlier, we are concerned only with two such noiticees in the present appeal. 4. With reference to first appellant (M/s.Sardana Enterprises), it was alleged that they did not produce documents relating to booking of consignments at Hong Kong as claimed by them. No invoice relating to goods was found along with th goods at the time of examination by the officers on 23.04.2012. The Airway bill had shown that the consignment was shipped to one M/s.Raja Traders with no identifiable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interception of the consignment, the appellant came forward to claim the cargo with a plea that the shipping courier in Hong Kong committed an error. Ld. AR submitted that this is an afterthought, to avoid penalty and the other consequences, the appellant have submitted invoice etc. later. Even the invoice submitted did not carry the full details regarding brand name etc. of the product. He supported the findings of the Original Authority with reference to this appellant. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 9. It is a fact that the courier consignment did not contain the necessary statutory details on the pack. The details contained were vague and there was a clear attempt in mis-declaration of high value electronic items to avoid customs duty. This much is apparent from the facts as narrated in the impugned order. Much after interception of cargo, the appellant came forward with invoice and other details claiming ownership of the goods. We note that even at that time, the appellant could not produce necessary supporting evidence with reference to booking of consignment at Hong Kong and also the reason for invoice dated 15.04.2012 not having full par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improper transaction. In the present case, we note that the redemption fine works out to more than 26% of the re-determined value. We note that the same is excessive and accordingly, reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 7.5 Lakhs. 13. An amount of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant as penalty under Section 112 (a). The said penalty is with reference to improper importation of the goods on person, who does or omits to do any act which, act or omission has been render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In the present case, as discussed above, there is clear justification for such penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 14. We note a further penalty of Rs. 5,39,747/- (equal to the duty amount) was imposed on the appellant in terms of Section 114 (AA). Considering that already a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant, we find that penalty under Section 114 AA can be reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. Such reduction is justifiable keeping in mind that the total duty involvement in the present consignment itself is only Rs. 5.39 lakhs. 15. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
